Identifying health inequities faced by older adults with rare diseases: A systematic literature review and proposal for an ethical spectrum and resource allocation framework.

Ageism in healthcare has received increased attention in recent years, but literature focusing on how it affects individuals living with rare diseases remains scant. The rare disease population already faces obstacles when navigating health systems, and ageism has the potential to exacerbate existing health inequities. We conducted a systematic review of peer-reviewed and gray literature on health inequities in rare disease populations, seeking to identify publications that reported primary or secondary data on the equitable or inequitable treatment of these populations, or that discussed related regulatory, moral, or philosophical issues. Our aims were to understand how health inequities in these populations arise, how they are justified from societal points of view, how they manifest themselves in laws and regulations, and what effects they have on health care access and health outcomes. We retrieved information from 63 publications, which we inductively synthesized into five categories: ethical discussions, societal preferences, regulations, access to care, and health outcomes. Integrating insights from these categories, we developed an Ethical Spectrum and Resource Allocation Framework, which explains the emergence of equity issues and how they are manifested in health systems. By providing a better understanding of the root causes of health inequities, particularly among older adults, the framework can inform health policymaking, improving access to care and health outcomes for rare disease patients.

Advanced Regenerative Medicines for Rare Diseases: A Review of Industry Sponsors Investment Motivations.

Despite regulatory changes designed to stimulate investment in therapies for rare diseases, many of these conditions lack government-approved treatments. Advanced regenerative medicines, which are therapies and clinical interventions aimed at healing or replacing damaged or defective human cells, tissues, and organs, offer great promise for addressing many rare diseases. A major challenge facing advanced regenerative medicines for rare diseases is securing financial support to assist in bringing a therapy to market. This paper describes the factors cited by pharmaceutical industry players globally for sponsoring the development of advanced regenerative medicines for rare diseases. The paper examines the motivations of 53 sponsors that meet the latter criteria. The motivations behind investments were broadly similar amongst sponsors and map closely onto regulatory requirements for clinical development and marketing authorization of advanced therapeutic products, including the presence of accelerated or attenuated pathways for regulatory approval, use for indications with high unmet medical needs, and/or that have advantages over existing therapies, and robust preclinical data. Other factors include availability of investment incentives and opportunities for off-label use in the post-approval stages.

A scoping review of the role of managed entry agreements in upcoming drugs for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: learning from the case of spinal muscular atrophy.

Introduction: The therapeutic options for spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) are encouraging. However, there is currently no cure for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). The clinical and economic uncertainty surrounding innovative treatments for rare neurodegenerative diseases makes it necessary to understand managed entry agreements (MEAs). The aim of this study was to review whether models of MEAs in SMA could be extrapolated to ALS. Methods: We performed a scoping review with information on MEAs on SMA in Web of Science (WOS), PubMed, Lyfegen Library, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), and the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH). Results: We found 45 results in WOS and PubMed. After an initial survey, 10 were reviewed to assess eligibility, and three were selected. We obtained 44 results from Lyfegen Library, and three results each from NICE and CADTH. Conclusion: The main objective of MEAs is to reduce uncertainty in the financing of drugs with a high budgetary impact and clinical concerns, as is the case with drugs for SMA and ALS. While the information available on MEAs in SMA is scarce, some conceptual models are publicly available. MEAs for long-term treatments for SMA could be used for the design of MEAs in ALS because of their similarities in economic and clinical uncertainty.

Valuation of Medical Innovation Handling with Uncertainty and Risk.

Background: The purpose of this paper is to address how to handle uncertainty when performing an economic valuation of a medical innovation R&D project in orphan diseases from the perspective of the investor. Methods: We describe the specific uncertainty related to cash flows and the cost of capital for innovation in orphan diseases. The uncertainty in cash flows relates to sales, manufacturing and R&D costs, and probabilities of failure for each phase in the clinical trial program. We consider different net present values (NPVs) and higher standard deviations for orphan drugs compared to non-orphan drugs. Results: Numerical case base examples showed the differences in trade-off by an investor for R&D projects with differences in NPV and level of uncertainty. The investor will transfer the additional uncertainty in cash flows in a higher cost of capital. An alternative approach is the application of an "acceptability curve" based on a probabilistic sensitivity analysis, which displays the cumulative probabilities at a range of different values for the NPV. Finally, we consider uncertainty in the cost of capital itself by applying the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM). Conclusions: In this paper, we described various types of uncertainty and explored various approaches to how to handle uncertainty in the economic valuation of medical innovation in orphan diseases. The bridging of health economics with economic valuation theory in the healthcare market is to our knowledge a novel approach for the valuation of medical innovation by investors.

Updated analysis of the prescription and evaluation of protein kinase inhibitors for oncology in Germany.

A recent analysis from our group ( https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37014400/ ) has shown that the immense costs of the 20 protein kinase inhibitors for oncology approved from 2015 to 2019 are largely caused by drugs whose additional benefit has not been proven. We updated our analysis by adding the newly approved protein kinase inhibitors of the years 2020 and 2021. Based on the 2021 and 2022 Arzneiverordnungsreport (AVR), we expanded our analysis to include a total of nine protein kinase inhibitors newly approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) in 2020 and 2021. As a result, 29 protein kinase inhibitors were identified for an update of our analysis. For these 29 drugs, all additional benefit assessments published by the Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss (GBA) were analyzed. The additional benefit assessments of the GBA were compared with the corresponding assessments of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Hämatologie und Onkologie (DGHO, German Society for Hematology and Oncology) and the Arzneimittelkommission der deutschen Ärzteschaft (AkdÄ, Drug Commission of the German Medical Association). In addition, a total number of 91 drug advertisements published in the journal Oncology Research and Treatment in 2022 were analyzed. The number of protein kinase inhibitors for which no additional benefit can be found by the GBA is increasing, whereas the number of drugs for which a considerable additional benefit can be found is decreasing. Thus, in the current 2022 (re)assessment of additional benefit by the GBA, no additional benefit was identified for 50% of the drugs (2020, 46%). Nineteen percent were assessed with a minor additional benefit (2020, 18%) and also 19% with a considerable additional benefit (2020, 27%). For 12% of the drugs, the additional benefit could not be quantified by the GBA (2020, 9%). The benefit assessments by other medical societies often differ significantly from those of the GBA, mainly due to different evaluations of various endpoint parameters. In addition, more and more protein kinase inhibitors are being approved as orphan drugs. However, their additional benefit cannot be quantified by the GBA in most cases (78%). In 38% of the advertisements of an oncology journal, protein kinase inhibitors are promoted, which shows the pharmacoeconomic importance of these drugs. In summary, the current additional benefit assessment procedure in Germany is very questionable, and reforms are urgently needed to maintain the stability of the German healthcare system, which is being undermined by the high cost of medicines, particularly for drugs whose additional benefits have not been proven.

The Health Benefits, Costs, and Cost-Effectiveness of Ultraorphan Drugs.

OBJECTIVES: To examine ultraorphan drugs in terms of incremental health, costs, and cost-effectiveness compared with more prevalent disease drugs. METHODS: We identified Food and Drug Administration drug approvals from 1999 to 2019. For drugs approved for multiple indications, we considered each drug-indication pair separately. Utilizing Food and Drug Administration's orphan drug designation and US disease prevalence, we categorized drug-indication pairs as: ultraorphan (<10 000 patients), "other" orphan (≥10 000 and <200 000), and nonorphan (≥200 000). We searched the PubMed database for cost-effectiveness analyses and comparative effectiveness studies. We excluded manufacturer-funded studies. We extracted estimates of incremental health gains in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental costs associated with drug-indication pairs compared with the standard of care at the time of their approval. We compared QALY gains, added costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) using the Kruskal-Wallis, Mann-Whitney U (MWU), and Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS) tests. RESULTS: Median incremental QALYs, costs, and ICERs differed across nonorphan, "other" orphan, and ultraorphan categories (Kruskal-Wallis P < .01). Compared with nonorphan drugs, ultraorphan drugs had larger QALY gains (0.700 vs 0.050, MWU P < .01, KS P < .01), larger costs ($172 231 vs $3360, MWU P < .01, KS P < .01), and larger ICERs ($1 216 184/QALY vs $114 061/QALY, MWU P < .01, KS P <.01). Compared with "other" orphan drugs, ultraorphan drugs had larger QALY gains (0.700 vs 0.310, MWU P =.65, KS P =.32), larger costs ($172 231 vs $69 308, MWU P = .03, KS P = .03), and larger ICERs ($1 216 184/QALY vs $223 472/QALY, MWU P <.01, KS P <.01). CONCLUSIONS: Novel ultraorphan drugs typically offer larger incremental health gains than drugs for more prevalent diseases, but because of their substantial added costs, are typically less cost-effective.

Three Pillars of Support for Orphan Drug Programs: Individual Valuations, Societal Valuations, and Anonymous Altruism.

OBJECTIVES: To identify and describe potential societal and individual sources of support for orphan drug programs. METHODS: The Generalized Risk-Adjusted Cost-Effectiveness method shows that acute illness and disability severity increase individuals' willingness to pay for health gains. We develop a social welfare function (SWF) that incorporates individuals' own values, combined with politically or ethically determined weights. We introduce the concept of horizontal equity-that individuals in similar situations should be treated similarly-into the SWF. Finally, we introduce anonymous altruism into individuals' utility functions-the desire to help others, without knowing their identity. RESULTS: Combined with the empirical link between disease severity and rarity, the Generalized Risk-Adjusted Cost-Effectiveness method demonstrates heightened willingness to pay for health gains for people with rare diseases, leading rational individuals to support orphan drug programs, our first pillar of support. Adding horizontal equity to the SWF further increases societal support for orphan drug programs. Anonymous altruism, focusing most strongly on those in the most-dire circumstances, leads to altruistic support for those with severe disorders. Because innovators' economic incentives lead them to focus on larger markets, anonymous altruistic individuals will increasingly prefer public investments into rare diseases over time, as private markets systematically produce gains for common diseases. CONCLUSIONS: We identified 3 supporting pillars for orphan drug programs: (1) individuals' propensity to prefer treatments for severe diseases; (2) the preference for horizontal equity in our social welfare; (3) anonymous altruism, the desire to help strangers, coupled with market incentives that underserve strangers with rare diseases.

Clinical trial evidence supporting FDA approval of novel orphan drugs between 2017 and 2023.

Characterization analysis of 87 pivotal clinical trials for 72 novel orphan drugs (76 orphan indications) approved by the FDA from 2017 to 2023 revealed that the clinical trial evidence supporting FDA orphan drug approvals often lacked high-quality designs, which frequently did not incorporate randomization, blinding, placebo or no treatment control, or clinical endpoint-driven methodologies. Additionally, regulatory flexibility was observed in the quantity of clinical trial evidence required, which included choices such as a single trial plus confirmatory evidence, one large multicenter trial or at least two trials. Furthermore, the overall strength of the clinical trial evidence exhibited variations across different orphan drugs and indications, influenced by features such as the therapeutic area and whether the orphan drug was granted accelerated approvals.

Utilization and affordability of health insurance coverage for rare disease drugs in a first-tier city in Northeast China from 2018 to 2021: a study based on the health insurance claims database.

OBJECTIVE: The accessibility issue of orphan drugs in China is prominent. Based on real-world data from a tier-one city in Northeast China, this study aims to analyze the current usage and affordability of orphan drugs for rare diseases. METHODS: The data was sourced from the health insurance claims data of a certain city from 2018 to 2021, including a total of 16 orphan drugs. The utilization of orphan drugs is assessed using four indicators: frequency of medical insurance claims, medication cost, defined daily doses (DDDs), and defined daily drug cost (DDDc). Affordability is measured using the concept of catastrophic health expenditure (CHE). RESULTS: Between January 2018 and December 2021, there were a total of 2,851 medical insurance claims in the city, with a total medication costs of $3.08 million. Overall, during the study, there was a year-on-year increase in the utilization frequency of individual rare disease drugs in the city, with DDDs rising from 140.22 in 2018 to 3983.63 in 2021. Additionally, the annual medication costs of individual drugs showed a consistent upward trend, increasing from $10,953.53 in 2018 to $120,491.36 in 2021. However, the DDDc of individual drugs decreased from $398.12 in 2018 to $96.65 in 2021.The number of sales and the amount of sales for orphan drugs in community pharmacies have significantly increased. Prior to medical insurance coverage, out of the 16 orphan drugs, 9 drugs had annual treatment costs exceeding CHE for urban residents, and 15 drugs had annual treatment costs exceeding CHE for rural residents. After medical insurance coverage, there were no drugs with out-of-pocket costs exceeding CHE for urban residents, while 8 drugs had out-of-pocket costs exceeding CHE for rural residents. Furthermore, both before and after medical insurance coverage, the four treatment drugs for idiopathic pulmonary arterial hypertension were more affordable compared to the four treatment drugs for multiple sclerosis. CONCLUSION: The usage frequency of orphan drugs in a certain city increased gradually, but the disease burden remained heavy. More policy support should be provided to the priority rare disease populations, and the rare disease medical security and diagnosis and treatment systems should be improved.

Rare disease clinical trials in the European Union: navigating regulatory and clinical challenges.

BACKGROUND: Clinical development for orphan drugs presents significant difficulties and challenges. There is no unique or standard design, conduct, and outcome assessment methodology and it is sometimes impractical to fit design models of rare disease trials in any practiced and well-known framework. In the European Union (EU) these challenges encompass a broad array of subjects, including trial design, study outcomes, patient recruitment, trial conduct ethics, trial cost, and chances of success. This literature-based review study aims to provide a thorough overview of the critical aspects of rare disease trials in the EU by analyzing the current landscape of rare disease trials, highlighting key challenges, delving into regulatory and research initiatives and innovation in trial designs, and proposing multi-faceted solutions to implement effective rare disease clinical trials in the region. DISCUSSION: Traditional clinical trial designs, validation, and evaluation methodologies used for nonorphan drugs often prove unsuitable for orphan drugs, given the small patient populations, sometimes fewer than 1000 cases. There is an increasing need for accessible therapies and both regulators as well as industry are trying to develop affordable and effective drugs to address this need. Despite several steps that have been taken, the timely development of drugs remains a challenge. One of the reasons behind the long development timeline is the recruitment, retention, and conduct of rare disease trials. To optimize the development timelines of orphan drugs in the EU, it is important to ensure that the safety and efficacy of the product is not compromised. Industry and regulatory agencies must implement innovative trial designs, devise flexible policies, and incorporate real-world data for assessing clinical outcomes. CONCLUSION: Collaboration among academic institutions, pharmaceutical companies (both small and major), patient groups, and health authorities is crucial in overcoming obstacles related to clinical trials and providing assistance and creative ideas. The ultimate objective of granting rare disease patients timely and affordable access to medications with a positive balance between benefits and risks is to be met.

Societal Preferences in Health Technology Assessments for Rare Diseases and Orphan Drugs: A Systematic Literature Review of New Analytic Approaches.

OBJECTIVES: This systematic literature review aimed to explore experiences worldwide of societal preferences integration into health technology assessments (HTAs) for rare diseases (RDs) and orphan drugs (ODs) through the implementation of multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA), discrete choice experiments (DCEs), and person trade-off (PTO) methods, among others. METHODS: A systematic search of the literature was conducted in April 2021 using PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and Scopus databases. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses approach was used for the review phases. Finally, the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services framework was used to discuss the implementation of these instruments in the RD context. RESULTS: A total of 33 articles met the inclusion criteria. The studies measured societal preferences for RD and OD as part of HTA using MCDA (n = 17), DCE (n = 8), and PTO (n = 4), among other methods (n = 4). These found that patients and clinicians do not prioritize funding based on rarity. The public is willing to allocate funds only if the OD demonstrates effectiveness and improves the quality of life, considering as relevant factors disease severity, unmet health needs, and quality of life. Conversely, HTA agency experts preferred their current approach, placing more weight on cost-effectiveness and evidence quality, even though they expressed concern about the fairness of the drug review process. CONCLUSIONS: MCDA, PTO, and DCE are helpful and transparent methods for assessing societal preferences in HTA for RD and OD. However, their methodological limitations, such as arbitrary criteria selection, subjective scoring methods, framing effects, weighting adaptation, and value measurement models, could make implementation challenging.

International comparison of availability for orphan drugs: focused on approved orphan drugs in South Korea.

Introduction: In this study, we aimed to comparatively analyse the indicators of availability to orphan drugs in South Korea, the United States of America, Europe Union, and Japan. Methods: For 169 drugs designated as orphan drugs in South Korea between 2012 and 2021, information on the drugs designated as orphan drugs from each jurisdiction was extracted by country. Then, the availability indicators (approval time, drug lag time, and designation gap) were analysed for the drugs approved in each jurisdiction. Results: The approval rate of drugs designated as orphan drugs were 11.22% and 6.31% in the USA and EU, respectively, which was lower than that of orphan drugs in South Korea and Japan. The highest number of approved drugs was in the USA (87 drugs), EU 27 drugs, Japan 22 drugs and Korea 21 drugs. Furthermore, the approval time significantly differed between South Korea and the other countries. South Korea had a significantly different drug lag time and designation gap compared with the USA and EU. Conclusion: Our findings show that to fundamentally improve the access to treatments for rare disease, a policy of regulatory science that can comprehensively support the early stages of research and development and commercialisation is needed.

Orphan drug policy analysis in China.

Rare diseases have various types, low incidence rates, complex conditions, and are often difficult to diagnose. Due to China's large population, there is a significant number of rare disease patients, but there is a shortage of orphan drugs. Consequently, these patients often find themselves in a situation where necessary medications are either unavailable or unaffordable. To address this urgent clinical need, China has implemented a series of orphan drug policies aimed at improving drug accessibility and affordability. In terms of drug accessibility, companies are encouraged to expedite drug development through the implementation of tax incentives, guidance for clinical research on rare diseases, and the provision of data protection periods of 6 years, along with market exclusivity periods limited to a maximum of 7 years. Moreover, exemptions for clinical trials, acceptance of overseas clinical trial data, and the creation of a list prioritizing clinically urgent new drugs from overseas have been introduced to expedite the drug registration application, review, inspection, and approval processes. In terms of drug affordability, the import value-added tax on rare disease drugs has been reduced by 3%, and various provinces and cities have established a representative rare disease protection model, which includes special funds, medical assistance programs, and serious disease insurance. The national medical insurance catalog has been adjusted to reduce the financial burden on rare disease patients, resulting in an increase in the number of orphan drugs covered by the catalog to 95 as of March 2024. By comparing orphan drug policies in the United States, the European Union, Japan, Australia, and other countries (or regions), we will provide relevant suggestions to further improve orphan drug policies in China, thus bringing more treatment options and hope to patients with rare diseases.

Drug repurposing for rare diseases.

Repurposing drugs for rare diseases is a creative and cost-efficient method for creating new treatment options for certain conditions. This technique entails repurposing existing pharmaceuticals for new uses by utilizing established information regarding pharmacological characteristics, modes of operation, safety profiles, and interactions with biological systems. Creating new treatments for uncommon diseases is frequently difficult because of factors including small patient groups, disease intricacy, and insufficient knowledge of disease pathobiology. Drug repurposing is a more efficient and cost-effective approach compared to developing new drugs from scratch. It typically requires collaboration among academia, pharmaceutical firms, and patient advocacy groups.

Comparative policy analysis of national rare disease funding policies in Australia, Singapore, South Korea, the United Kingdom and the United States: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Rare diseases pose immense challenges for healthcare systems due to their low prevalence, associated disabilities, and attendant treatment costs. Advancements in gene therapy, such as treatments for Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA), have introduced novel therapeutic options, but the high costs, exemplified by Zolgensma® at US$2.1 million, present significant financial barriers. This scoping review aimed to compare the funding approaches for rare disease treatments across high-performing health systems in Australia, Singapore, South Korea, the United Kingdom (UK), and the United States (US), aiming to identify best practices and areas for future research. METHODS: In accordance with the PRISMA-ScR guidelines and the methodological framework by Arksey and O'Malley and ensuing recommendations, a comprehensive search of electronic databases (Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane) and grey literature from health department websites and leading national organizations dedicated to rare diseases in these countries was conducted. Countries selected for comparison were high-income countries with advanced economies and high-performing health systems: Australia, Singapore, South Korea, the UK, and the US. The inclusion criteria focused on studies detailing drug approval processes, reimbursement decisions and funding mechanisms, and published from 2010 to 2024. RESULTS: Based on a thorough review of 18 published papers and grey literature, various strategies are employed by countries to balance budgetary constraints and access to rare disease treatments. Australia utilizes the Life Saving Drugs Program and risk-sharing agreements. Singapore depends on the Rare Disease Fund, which matches public donations. South Korea's National Health Insurance Service covers specific orphan drugs through risk-sharing agreements. The UK relies on the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) to evaluate treatments for cost-effectiveness, supported by the Innovative Medicines Fund. In the US, a combination of federal and state programs, private insurance and non-profit support is used. CONCLUSION: Outcome-based risk-sharing agreements present a practical solution for managing the financial strain of costly treatments. These agreements tie payment to actual treatment efficacy, thereby distributing financial risk and promoting ongoing data collection. Countries should consider adopting and expanding these agreements to balance immediate expenses with long-term benefits, ultimately ensuring equitable access to crucial treatments for patients afflicted by rare diseases.

Clinical development and marketing application review times for novel orphan-designated drugs.

Development of an orphan-designated drug has been more challenging and financially less attractive than that of other drugs due to low prevalence of the condition, poorly defined biomarkers and lack of experience of healthcare providers in diagnosing and treating the condition. Guidance and incentives in some countries support the sponsors in developing orphan-designated drugs despite the challenges. Expedited regulatory programs as offered by the United States (US) Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) support the development of drugs, provide shorter marketing application review times or provide preliminary approval. In this study, we analyze marketing application review times in the US and in the European Union (EU) and clinical development times for novel, i.e., containing new molecular entity, orphan-designated drugs that were approved in the US between 1 June 2020 and 31 May 2023, and their correlation with expedited regulatory programs. Seventy-three marketing applications for novel orphan-designated drugs were approved by the FDA, and 39 also received a positive opinion from the EMA. The marketing application review time by the FDA for the 73 novel orphan-designated drugs approved in the US was 244 days (n = 73, median), and the marketing application review time by the EMA for the 39 drugs that were also approved in the EU was 353 days (n = 39, median). The typical clinical development time for a novel orphan-designated drug was 7.2 years (n = 72).

Recombinant Alpha-1 Antitrypsin-Fc Fusion Protein INBRX-101 in Adults With Alpha-1 Antitrypsin Deficiency: A Phase 1 Study.

Background: Alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency (AATD) is characterized by low alpha-1 antitrypsin (AAT) levels, predisposing individuals to lung disease. The standard of care, plasma-derived AAT (pdAAT), is delivered as weekly infusions to maintain serum AAT concentrations ≥11µM (≈50% of those in healthy individuals). INBRX-101, a recombinant human AAT-Fc fusion protein, was designed to have a longer half-life and achieve higher AAT levels than pdAAT. Methods: In this phase 1 dose-escalation study (N=31), adults with AATD received 1 dose (part 1) or 3 doses (part 2) of 10 (part 1), 40, 80, or 120mg/kg INBRX-101 every 3 weeks (Q3W) via intravenous infusion. The primary endpoint was safety and tolerability. Secondary endpoints were pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics (PD), and immunogenicity of INBRX-101. Results: INBRX-101 was well tolerated. Most treatment-emergent adverse events were grade ≤2. In part 2 (n=18; each dose, n=6), dose-related increases in serum functional AAT (fAAT) were observed; mean fAAT levels remained above the 21 µM target for up to 4 weeks after the final dose in the 120-mg/kg cohort. Antidrug antibodies had no meaningful impact on PK or PD. INBRX-101 was detected in pulmonary epithelial lining fluid (PELF) from all patients assessed (n=11), and PELF fAAT increased after dosing. PK/PD modeling projected steady-state serum fAAT ≥21µM at 120 mg/kg Q3W (average concentration ≈43µM; trough concentration ≈28µM) and Q4W (≈34µM; ≈21µM). Conclusion: The favorable safety profile and ability to maintain serum fAAT levels >21µM with extended-interval dosing, support a phase 2 trial evaluating Q3W and Q4W dosing of INBRX-101.

HTA criteria adopted in different models of public healthcare systems for orphan drugs: A scoping review.

Access to drugs for rare diseases constitutes a challenge to healthcare systems, especially those with public funding. This study aimed to map and summarize the criteria used by HTA agencies in different healthcare systems to evaluate reimbursement recommendations for orphan drugs. A comprehensive literature search was performed on the databases PubMed, LILACS, Scopus, and Embase and the gray literature (Google Scholar and websites of HTA agencies). Publications addressing the criteria used by HTA agencies in countries with public healthcare systems when evaluating reimbursement recommendations for orphan drugs were included. This scoping review included 23 studies published between 2014 and 2023, mostly consisting of reviews of HTA reports, guidance documents, and original articles. The criteria were mapped from 19 countries and ranked within three models of healthcare systems (National Health System, National Health Insurance, and Social Health Insurance). All models shared concerns about unmet needs and disease nature. In addition, NHS countries (e.g., United Kingdom, Sweden, and Italy) prioritized innovation and system-level impact, while SHI countries (e.g., Germany, France, the Netherlands) usually valued budget impact and employed expedited evaluation processes. This review provides a comprehensive understanding of the general tendencies of each healthcare system model in establishing differentiated criteria to address the challenges posed by the limited evidence and investment in the field of rare diseases.

Capitalizing on Hope: Questionable Marketing Approval and Pricing of a New ALS Drug.

Regulatory agencies must balance patient demands to access new treatments for fatal diseases with limited treatment options while ensuring drug safety and efficacy. However, questionable U.S. regulatory actions resulted in the early approval of AMX0035 to treat amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) by reconvening advisory commissions to obtain positive decisions and designating the drug as a new molecular entity. Data from one randomized clinical trial suggests minimal delays in disease progression and longer survivability, but debate remains about the lack of confirmatory evidence of effectiveness owing to study limitations. A patient's decision-making process details the experience of using the drug, including perspectives on access, cost, effectiveness, and adverse effects. In line with the "nichebuster" business model, the drugmaker, Amylyx Pharmaceuticals, is charging US$158,000/year/patient and thus forecast to turn a profit on a drug with debatable clinical effectiveness prior to completing a Phase 3 trial. Early marketing approval, despite community demands, is unnecessary and may have reduced access because of the end of a compassionate use program, and the high price tag results in restricted coverage and high out-of-pocket costs. Also, the drug's key ingredients are available as a generic and a supplement.

Development of the Emirates Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Tool for Orphan Drugs.

Background The number of orphan drug approvals is currently increasing globally. This creates a significant burden on payers and healthcare systems. This study aimed to create a multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) tool for evaluating orphan drugs within the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The intended result of the tool is to provide evidence-based guidance to decision-makers in reimbursement and procurement decisions. Methods We conducted a literature search and local expert interviews to identify relevant preliminary criteria for the MCDA tool. Then we conducted a structured consensus-building session for healthcare experts and decision-makers in the UAE to develop the Emirati MCDA tool for orphan drugs. The experts voted for the criteria to be included in the tool and their ranking according to importance, as well as the weight of each criterion and its scoring function. To improve understanding and facilitate the voting process, experts were provided with a brief illustration of similar tools conducted in other countries before the voting sessions. Finally, the tool was developed in a Microsoft Excel sheet (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, Washington, United States), and it was validated and tested based on real case studies, then it was fine-tuned accordingly based on the experts' discussions. The final tool was provided to the attendees to guide their decisions in the reimbursement and procurement of orphan drugs. Results The created tool provides a score for each analyzed orphan drug based on its value. Ten criteria were included in the final MCDA tool. These were cost-effectiveness (25.1% of the weight), magnitude of health gain (20.1%), availability of therapeutic alternative (14.3%), disease severity (11%), budget impact (7.9%), disease rarity (5.6%), strength of clinical evidence (5.6%), burden on households (4.5%), indication uniqueness (3.2%), and patients' age (2.6%). Conclusions Implementation of evidence-based healthcare necessitates assessing the fair value of each health technology. Addressing the high unmet medical needs and improving healthcare for patients with rare diseases are priorities within the UAE. The created Emirates MCDA tool for orphan drugs has the potential to help decision-makers implement value-based and evidence-based reimbursement decisions for orphan drugs.